The move to shut down and regulate the Internet under a new
government-controlled system has accelerated into high gear with the
announcement that the government’s cybersecurity strategy revolves
around issuing Internet users with ID “tokens” without which they will
not be able to visit websites, the latest salvo against web freedom
which, in combination with Senator Joe Lieberman’s ‘kill switch’ bill,
will serve to eviscerate the free Internet as we know it.

Under the guise of “cybersecurity,” the government is moving to
discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the
pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web.

It is important to stress that “cybersecurity” has nothing to do
with protecting the infrastructure of the United States and everything
to do with taking over the Internet. Cybersecurity is about attacking
non-compliant Internet users, not defending against hackers.
Non-compliance equates as using the Internet as a political tool to
dissent against the policies of the U.S. government. Having already
tried and failed in flooding
the web with paid disinformation agents, the government is now
turning to its only recourse, exploiting hyped or outright staged
cyberattacks as an excuse through which to implement an Internet 2
system controlled and regulated solely by the authorities.

We are constantly told that the Internet needs to be subject to
government control because cyberterrorists could hack in and bring down
the national power grid. However, the vast majority of the U.S. power
infrastructure is not connected to the Internet. It will only be
connected to the Internet if the government accelerates the
implementation of “smart grid” technology, so in this sense, the
government itself is leaving the power grid more vulnerable to hackers
by its own programs.

Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly
exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the
Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in
vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and
‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov,
a Belarus-born researcher and blogger who writes on the political
effects of the internet.

Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat
“are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to
justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which
derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”

Should the government go ahead and try to exercise the powers it is
now on the verge of acquiring, we’d expect to see the Internet shut
down for a few days in order to prevent some kind of contrived
cyberattack blamed on terrorists. Sure, there will be problems, but
large corporations will raise little dissent safe in the knowledge that
the Lieberman legislation gives them immunity from civil lawsuits and
also ensures they are reimbursed for any costs incurred if the Internet
is shut down for a period of time.

After a series of shutdowns, the government will simply demand that
every corporation or individual who wants to operate a website first
obtain a license and an individual Internet ID. Such licenses will be
revoked for anyone who engages in “hate speech,” which is now so broad a
term that it encompasses offending anyone on the Internet.

The result will be a sterile and regulated Internet which more
closely resembles cable TV than the true open source, outpost of free
speech that we have come to know and love.

This exact strategy was outlined in a paper published by Obama’s
cybersecurity co-ordinator Howard Schmidt, which was compiled with the
aid of the National Security Council.

The strategy revolves around, “The creation of a system for identity
management that would allow citizens to use additional authentication
techniques, such as physical tokens or modules on mobile phones, to
verify who they are before buying things online or accessing such
sensitive information as health or banking records,” reports
the FInancial Times.

Only with this government-issued “token” will Internet users be
allowed to “able to move from website to website,” a system not too far
removed from what China proposed and rejected for being too
authoritarian.

It is imperative that everyone redouble their efforts to bring
attention to this matter because Lieberman’s bill is on the verge of
passing the Senate and it will hand the government total control over
the Internet unless we can alert enough organizations from across the
political spectrum to oppose this monstrosity in unison.

The true nature of the cybersecurity agenda was revealed when
Lieberman told CNN’s Candy Crowley that his 197-page Protecting
Cyberspace as a National Asset Act (PDF)
legislation was part of an effort to mimic China’s control of the
Internet.

“Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its
Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too,” said
Lieberman.

The Senator’s reference to China is a telling revelation of what the
cybersecurity agenda is really all about. China’s vice-like grip over
its Internet systems has very little to do with “war” and everything to
do with silencing all dissent against the state.

Chinese Internet censorship is imposed via a centralized government
blacklist of any websites that contain criticism of the state, porn, or
any other content deemed unsuitable by the authorities. Every time you
attempt to visit a website, you are re-routed through the government
firewall, often making for long delays and crippling speeds.

Chinese authorities are now going further than merely maintaining a
“blacklist” of banned websites by instituting a
“whitelist” of allowed websites, a move that “could potentially
place much of the Internet off-limits to Chinese readers”. Websites not
pre-registered with the government would be completely blocked to all
Internet users, meaning “millions of completely innocuous sites” would
be banned. This equates to requiring government approval to set up a
website, which would obviously not be granted if the person or
organization making the application has a history of or is likely to
engage in dissent against the state.

Given the nature of Chinese Internet regulation, with has nothing to
do with “war” as Lieberman claims and everything to do with political
censorship and covering up information about state oppression, we
should be alarmed that the Senator wants to see America move in the
same direction.

The real agenda behind government control of the Internet has always
been to strangle and suffocate independent media outlets who are now
competing with and even displacing establishment press organs, with
websites like the Drudge Report now attracting more traffic than many
large newspapers combined. As part of this war against independent
media, the
FTC recently proposing a “Drudge Tax” that would force independent
media organizations to pay fees that would be used to fund mainstream
newspapers.

Under the FCC’s regulatory control consumers would be forced to buy
an Internet/TV/Phone connectivity box that the government approves.
“Everyone will pay rates for service that the government sets. And
everything passing through your Internet, TV, or phone would become
subject to the FCC’s consistent regulatory whim,” writes
Americans for Tax Reform’s Kelly William Cobb.

Similar legislation aimed at imposing Chinese-style censorship of
the Internet and giving the state the power to shut down networks has
already been passed globally, including
in the UK, New
Zealand and Australia.

We
have extensively covered efforts to scrap the internet as we know it
and move toward a greatly restricted “internet 2″ system. Handing
government the power to control the Internet would only be the first
step towards this system, whereby individual ID’s and government
permission would be required simply to operate a website, and this is
precisely what the National Security Council has proposed for the new
cybersecurity measures that are set to be implemented over the next few
years.